Vivisector

Following up on my homework, I searched for the phrase "called Christ" in the following of Origen's works:

Prologue of Rufinus
Origen de Principiis
A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna
A Letter from Origen to Africanus
A Letter from Origen to Gregory
Against Celsus

I found a total of three occurrences of the phrase, all from Against Celsus.

Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ (Preface). Origen is quoting Pilate's words from Mt 27.17.

The other two are the references to the James passage in Josephus, with which we are familiar.

From this alone, it seems unlikely that Origen would have used "called Christ" as parenthetical information. Moreover, from CC Book II Chap. XIII, we have:

But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

This is one of the two earlier referenced passages. I include it because Origen very clearly distinguishes between Josephus's reference to Jesus (who was called Christ) and Origen's own (Jesus Christ the Son of God).

I'm simply seeing no reason for believing that Origen's use of "called Christ" was his own parenthetical information. Also, if Origen is any example, then there's no indication that "called Christ" would have been an acceptable, let alone common, way for Christians to refer to Jesus.

Amaleq13

Yes except that, on further consideration, I think I have to assume the phrase to be an intentional interpolation given the wording. It is possible that it started out as a margin note ("brother of Jesus") identifying James but "called Christ" seems to me more likely an attempt to make the reference seem as though it was written by a non-Christian ala Matthew's usage. The interpolator was not clever enough, however, to avoid his own bias and place the reference to Jesus after naming James where it would be less suspicious.

A century-and-a-half? Nope.

That would be appear to be a fact rather than my opinion.

Correct.

Since that is how the extant text reads, I tend to assume so. I suppose it is possible that a later interpolator, seeing no such phrase in Josephus despite reading it in Origen, decided to add it but I'll stick with the more simple explanation.

Such an inferrence would not be solely based on this phrase. Reading all of Josephus would pretty much convince anyone that he was Jewish and that there was absolutely no indication he was a Jewish Christian. Even without the phrase (and the TF), any reasonably informed reader would feel secure in assuming that Josephus was Jewish rather than Christian. In addition, I think it has been mentioned before that there is a passage in one of Josephus' works where he appears to suggest that Vespasian fulfilled certain messianic prophecies.

Not exactly. I don't think Origen's use of the term requires a positive attribution on the part of Josephus. He doesn't say "false prophet" but he also doesn't say "true prophet". If Josephus had written "called prophet", what would prevent Origen from saying so? Nothing. In fact, had he done so, there is good reason to assume that Origen would have called him on it just as he does for referring to Jesus as "called Christ".

Based on what else Josephus writes about prophets, he either identifies them as a true prophets, identifies them as false prophets, or identifies them as being called "prophet" by themselves or others. Origen's comment fits none of these. It seems to me that he has deliberately used the bare term because it covers either of the other two possibilities. The only reason to do that would be because he had nothing substantive with which to work.

spin

It's a different scale of intervention. One is at a paragraph level, while the other is within a sentence. You clearly need James to make sense of the sentence and much of the rest of the paragraph... The TF interrupts the discourse of its context.

On the TF's Jesus being more than a prophet:
It certainly is a problem for you, though unrelated to Josephus whose use of "prophet" neither allows bland statements. The content of the TF doesn't allow one to think that Jesus was predicated with "prophet".

I think this is incredibly ingenuous. When citing something from memory one often associates things from different sources. The brain doesn't have such a precise filing system as you would pretend it did.

Then, if there were a TF and it was worded as you muse, Origen would not have gleaned from it a phrase that Jesus was a prophet. For one to declare himself a prophet is tantamount to being a charletan.

I'm saying the process is fundamentally flawed.

You are taking what someone says a few centuries later and retrojecting it into the earlier text without anything in the original text to justify it. You could take the Prince of the Nile and recreate the Torah in its image with this logic.

Doesn't read which way? What are you suggesting it did read?

You have no tools to tackle it with. You have no way of knowing how Origen got the idea. You can only guess.

I don't know what CJ is there is no immediate contextualization.

The Romans had no reason to preserve a Jewish apology. The Jews generally repudiated the traitor Josephus. The Christians had good reason to transmit it, as it deals with matters that concern them and they had no problem using non-Christian sources as the early fathers are happy to show. I'd say relatively early.

The interpolation in the James passage is real easy: scribe A notes in the margin that this James was the brother of Jesus called Christ: scribe B takes it as something omitted from the text. The TF is a different beast: it was deliberately implanted as a witness, containing all the elements one needs for the kerygma.

On the vairous examples of legomenos in the nt:
No, I have shown that it's not the construction, but the exact words. There is nothing special to be implied by the wording ihsous o legomenos xristos for the wording is quite frequently used in the nt as saying that X is to be said Y. And the exact words are not unique as you pointed out with your other examples. It's just that you mightn't like who were given the words to say.

On the unique structure of "the brother of Jesus called Christ, known as James":
1) it doesn't reflect Josephus's language,
2) it doesn't reflect Jewish custom of referring to people,
3) it uses a term that Josephus doesn't use elsewhere (though it is in the TF),
4) there are reasons to doubt that Josephus would have used "Christ" at all.

Both have been given here.

This is silly. The structure of "X called Y" is quite common in the nt as I have demonstrated. The use of xristos is more than expected in the nt, yet unprecedented in AJ. What are you on about??

I can't help the predelictions of other posters.

There is nothing to suggest from Origen that it was there. As I pointed out his comments were in explanatory glosses.

That Origen uses the term "prophet" is a problem for you. It can't reflect Josephus. There's little scope in a proto-TF for reference to "prophet" unless you want to assume that the hypothetical original for of the TF was so completely different it is not reconstructible. One wouldn't consider that Origen would use "prophet" as he did, even if he did find it in a text he was referring to. Origen's wording itself is suspect.

I have this recollection, but I read the work ages ago.


spin

Vivisector

Saw you were just on; will more thoroughly read what you posted later, but wanted to finish one thing. Sorry for undefined shorthand: CJ=Comma Johanneum

Same works of Origen, search for occurrences of "a prophet." Results as follows, all from CC.

And to this is subjoined the promise: "A prophet shall the Lord thy God raise up unto thee from among thy brethren." Book I, Chap. XXXVI. Origen is quoting Deut. 18:15.

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, Book I, Chap. XLVII. Origen is referring to Josephus’s Antiquities.

For it is written in your law, 'If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or dreamer of dreams,'" etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he says, "And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan; "while one, applying this to Moses, might say, "And he terms him who devises such things, a prophet who dreams. …on the ground of those words of Moses already quoted, "Is it not then a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a prophet and servant of God, and the others sorcerers? " Book II, Chap. LIII. Origen is quoting Deut. 13:15 and then, apparently, to something Celsus has said or might say.


"For all the gods of the nations are demons," had among them no one who professed to be a prophet, Bk III Chap II

And therefore, whatever else in the Mosaic writings may excite our wonder, the following must be considered as fitted to do so: "Ye shall not practise augury, nor observe the flight of birds; " and in another place: "For the nations whom the Lord thy God will destroy from before thy face, shall listen to omens and divinations; but as for thee, the Lord thy God has not suffered thee to do so." And he adds: "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you from among your brethren." Book IV, Chap XCV Again, Deut. 18:15

This statement of Celsus seems ingeniously designed to dissuade readers from attempting any inquiry or careful search into their meaning. And in this he is not unlike certain persons, who said to a man whom a prophet had visited to announce future events, "Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee? " Book VII, Chap. X

It is a prophet also who says, "Thou hast brought us down in a place of affliction; " Book VII, Chap. L. (Origen is referring to Psalm 43:20).

My impression is that to refer to Jesus as a prophet would definitely be un-Origenal.

Cheers,

V.

spin

You have not read this Origen text very closely.

Firstly, Josephus nowhere refers to James as "James the Just". Obviously this epithet is from later tradition. Secondly, Origen continues this apparently misguided notion that Josephus attributes the downfall of Jerusalem to James's death. Origen's basic notion here is that of CC: the downfall of Jerusalem was wrongly attributed by Josephus to the death of James, whereas it should have been attributed to the death of Jesus. Origen seems to be in error and doesn't seem to be referring directly to Josephus. You may try to make the case that AJ 20.9.1 had been tampered with before Origen's time -- it is possible --, but you won't find in Josephus a way of connecting the claim that the catastrophe was due to the death of James.

Origen is a dead end. He can't tell us anything useful about the original forms of the apparent Christian testimonies now in the text: there is almost no common ground.

It should be added that Origen seems totally unaware of the TF.

__________________________________________________ ___________________

I should have also noted that Origen also calls James "James the Just" in CC, which, along with the above passage, suggests that Origen is using some other, intermediate source, because the two Origen quotes bear more in common with each other than with what can be seen in the brief 20.9.1.
__________________________________________________ ___________________


spin

spin

I think I've already indicated this.

At the same time it doesn't reflect Josephus at all either. I'll leave that with you to reshape the Josephus prophet material. So far, not so good.


spin

Vivisector

As clarification only; this is why I earlier suggested eliminating basically the entire paragraph, because - as you point out - the information on James seems essential to the paragraph.


In current form, yes. But I really don't think you or I believe that, in it's current form, it's original. Unless I've gotten your position wrong, you don't believe Josephus ever wrote a TF in any form. If that's the case, then I don't understand how you can use the current TF in support of context arguments against any hypothetical TF.

Any Josephan connection between "Jesus" and "prophet" that I would suggest would be no more and no less bland than Josephus's usage in regard to Theudas and the Egyptian. And again, I don't think you can use the current TF to argue against a Jesus/prophet association, since neither of us believes it's original.

I'm not constructing hitherto undocumented principles of neurology here. I'm suggesting that you hypothesize Origen made a mistake - in an instance that is, coincidentally, supportive of your position - when this is something Origen was definitely not known for. If we had examples of similar mistakes that Origen made, that would certainly strengthen your hypothesis, but I'm unaware of examples that you'd consider similar mistakes.

We disagree (imagine that). Its use is definitely uncharacteristic of Origen (as I think you agreed with later), as is "Jesus called Christ." Origen uses both in the context of discussing the James passage. On the basis of these, I conclude it's more likely Origen got these phrases from Josephus.

Pardon the Josephan mangling of my original posting. I'm not suggesting the James passage ever read along the lines of "Jesus, the Christ" or "Jesus who is the Christ." I'm suggesting it has always read "Jesus, called Christ."

I'd first observe the obvious, that the content related more-or-less directly to Christians is a miniscule fraction of the total content of Josephus's works. And or course the Jews wouldn't have transmitted it. But to hypothesize that its transmission was an endeavor of Christian institutions from an early stage seems to raise quite a few questions, the largest of which - in my mind - would be motive (i.e., low Christian content) and means. To the best of my recollection, P45 and P46 are the largest surviving examples of copied bodies of Christian works from the period of Origen or before. Antiquities alone dwarfs either.

This is the "how," which is easy (though your example seems to require two generations of copying). Your "why" is unclear, especially when it involves inserting such an unusual phrase as "called Christ."

In general, "A called B" is not unique in either Josephus or the NT. I think we agree on this. But "Jesus called Christ" is as unique in the NT as in Josephus. "Jesus called Christ" has theological implications; it implicitly denies, or at least questions, Jesus's identity as the Christ. This is also why Origen differentiated Josephus's language (Jesus called Christ) from his own language (Jesus Christ). Are you really suggesting that, in an ancient Christian's mind, "Jesus called Christ" would have been no more objectionable than "Jesus the Christ," "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus?"

Regardless of what I think of your four findings (which, incidentally, seem to constitute a method that has not been proven reliable in identifying interpolations on account of lack of application to other passages), it remains that you have no textual support (indeed, relevant textual support is in the opposite direction), and you addressed only the "how" rather than the "why."

Addressed above. "Christ," "Jesus" and "X called Y" are all common in the NT. But not "Jesus called Christ." That's different.

I think I said so, almost in these words, a few posts ago.

Likewise, but I have no recollection at all.

We might be near - or at - the point where future posts will introduce little new information or ways of looking at it. If you agree, would you have any interest in summarizing our positions (on all or simply pieces of what we've discussed), our reasoning in favor, and our reasoning for disputing/rejecting the other's reasoning against and simply leave the matter there for a time? And if it needs to be said, this suggestion does not imply that I think you have "won" the discussion, just as your acceptance would not imply that you think I've "won" the discussion.

Vivisector

Is Origen "misguided" only when it supports your contention, or do you have other examples of misguidedness?

No agreement on the basic idea.

Issue of error addressed elsewhere. Tampering - I agree to tampering, but *after* Origen.

I agree that Origen seems to be unaware of anything resembling the current TF, and that his comments provide a very slim basis for reconstructing one. Still, we have *something* where it is, his statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ (which *could* be explained by the assumption that Josephus did not disavow Judaism, but remains a positive statement on Origen's part worthy of consideration), Origen's unusual use of prophet, and Origen's unusual use of "Jesus called Christ" (though this could have come just as easily from Josephus's James passage).


I think "the Just" would have been a traditional phrase for a Christian to attach to James in that milieu. "Called Christ" would have been a very unusual phrase for a Christian to attach to Jesus.

spin

The intervention is at a clearly defined point within a paragraph, or better, at a clearly defined point within one sentence, or better at a clearly defined point within a noun phrase. The TF is permeated with highly questionable material. Your comparison the two is as arbitrary as most of what you have said so far.

Because you have to deal with the manifestation that you are partially trying to defend in a non-arbitrary manner.

Your misguided contention that Origen must have got "prophet" referring to Jesus is based on your assumption that it must have been in Josephus -- and this, for it to have value in itself (as Origen is apparently referring to the James passage), must fit into the "the brother of Jesus the called Christ, known as James" noun phrase. Any other possibility and you are merely being inventive.

Had Origen found a reference to Jesus calling himself a prophet (does any gospel call him a prophet? -- No) and Josephus showing that he wasn't, wouldn't allow Origen to conclude anything about Jesus being a prophet from Josephus.

We are going by Josephus. Origen doesn't agree with what is found in Josephus. Either it was there and has been removed or Origen is mistaken. Perhaps you'd like to postulate that the attribution of the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James was actually a part of Josephus to favour your conjecture.

You simply cannot logically conclude any such thing. You know nothing about the transmission of the text between the time Josephus wrote his work and when, and in what form, Origen became acquainted with it.

Hot out of Matthew.

Yet it is a history of the Christian end of the world in Greek and deals with figures accepted on a religious level by Christians.

Who do you think was preserving the LXX from the middle of the 2nd c. CE after the more acceptable translation of Theodotion was made for the Jews? Josephus was written before the 2nd c. CE. Were any of the gospels? I doubt it.

As it is straight out of Mt 1:16 and the use of "Christ" for Jesus is only to be expected from Christians, your quibbling though ubnderstandable from a Christian point of view is unjustified from a philological vantage. There's nothing difficult in the "why" as it is a nice synthetic kerygma, inserted on the logic of an earlier quibble of yours about a calamity for the Jews.

You are mixing arguments. In the past people have complained about "called Christ" being Christian because they wanted it to mean "so-called Christ" in the current English pejorative sense. Theologically, a statement of someone called "Christ" in Josephus requires a lot of explanation, such as how a Jew could write it without explaining it, how a pre-Christian audience could hope to understand the term, which usually meant "ointment" outside Christian and Jewish circles, and Josephus is not writing for such circles.

As there is nothing strange about the structure of the phrase o legomenos xristos, and one would expect Christians to use it, though no-one else, we have to question it in Josephus and we have no reason to question it in Christian literature.

Rubbish. Mt 1:16 does neither. Nor does Simon called Peter deny or question Simon's identity as Peter.

You are still applying to Josephus what you can't know.

Why not? Is there anything objectionable about "Simon called Peter" or "Jesus called Justus" or "Thomas... called Didymus"?? Was the "high priest called Caiaphas" (arxiereus tou legomenou kaiafa) insinuating that he wasn't in fact Caiaphas? Were the words put into Pilate's mouth "Jesus called Christ" -- Pilate obviously didn't say this for "Christ" in that context wouldn't have meant anything to him -- insinuating anything other than a formal statement of the appellation?

I don't really think you have any reasons to ignore my "why", ie, in the case of the James text, that a scribe assumed that a marginal comment was a scribal correction (adding material assumed to have been left out).

That you don't like the four reasons I gave (for questioning the validity of the manifestation) is your problem.

1) it doesn't reflect Josephus's language,
2) it doesn't reflect Jewish custom of referring to people,
3) it uses a term that Josephus doesn't use elsewhere (though it is in the TF),
4) there are reasons to doubt that Josephus would have used "Christ" at all.

#1, unrepresentative language, is a common criterion used in detecting insertions.
#2, unrepresentative custom, is a common criterion used in detecting insertions.
#3, hapax legomena, are a common criterion used in detecting problems.
#4, the clear avoidance of a term throughout a work should indicate that one should question its sudden appearance.

Your saying so doesn't make it so. It is straight out of the gospel. There is nothing strange about a Christian using it.

I'm saying a little more. As this hypothetical original is not reconstructible, you are wasting our time guessing about it.

Sorry, but I don't think you've added anything new since your quibble about "prophet" and your attempt to inject it into Josephus without knowing its trajectory. That's inventive of you, but in no way reflective of Josephus.

You are free to say whatever you like while it is on the topic, Viv. But I think you've got the arguments clear in your attempts to deal with them.


spin

spin

You should have said "Does Origen seem 'misguided'..." in order to reflect the "apparently" in my statement. It is appearance that we are working on, though in your case it's what doesn't appear. :snooze:

So, how do you divine the fact that "the Just" was from Origen? And why do you not respond to the more important claim in what I'd said here?

"you won't find in Josephus a way of connecting the claim that the catastrophe was due to the death of James."

What makes you think there was any knowledge of a TF? The passage which precedes the TF is also basically found complete in JW, but it certainly isn't followed by a version of the TF.

In short, you have no reason to believe that Origen knew anything about the TF. :boohoo:

That Josephus didn't mention Jesus would be sufficient to say that he did not evince belief in the Jesus called Christ.

What is unusual about Origen using a gospel phrase such as "Jesus called Christ"? Don't you think he know of Mt 1:16? :angel:

Just another piece of evidence that the words of Origen don't point directly to Josephus but have been filtered through Christian tradition.

I guess they didn't read the gospel of Matthew. :rolling:


spin